They bought the golf club across church road. Going to build more courts and better practice facilities there. they are always modernizing it while still keeping its traditions.The world is changig and W is seen as a mainly white privilege type event that is not inclusive. That image is damagig nowadays and they really need to modernise urgently. The AO has got it bang on. On its way to being THE Major to win.
For all of the claims of W being antiquated, they did slow down the courts the earliest and before USO followed suit. They also got the roof long before USO and RG. They can't compete with AO in terms of modernity but some people on this thread underestimate the global popularity of Wimbledon. Blame it on colonialism if you like or on Borg McEnroe but for a lot of people, tennis is synonymous with Wimbledon.They bought the golf club across church road. Going to build more courts and better practice facilities there. they are always modernizing it while still keeping its traditions.
Well, I would argue that the big-3 era is actually one of the leading causes of professional tennis turning to this boring, homogenous playing style. I hope that, once they are gone, tennis reverts to a (even more) niche activity that it once was and becomes less constrained by commercial pressures and freer to develop in a more "organic" way again.I am not sure Wimbledon is in trouble more than tennis in general. Don´t get me wrong, but the Big 3 took tennis to new heights, and the next gen seem unlikely to do that. Unfortunately most of the next gen is just big serve + forehand and baseline game. It is also very unlikely that we will see many as consistent as the Big 3, and this could pose trouble for any player gaining a big fanbase. Wimbledon still has prestige and is during the summer, so I don´t think it is in big trouble.
In Germany it has been only Wimbledon and the FO for years.For most people who watch tennis on TV, Wimbledon is tennis. There are plenty of people who love watching Wimbledon who are unaware that the other grand slam events even exist, let alone all the 250, 500 and 1000 events.
For the above reasons intelligent players should play BAREFOOT! The coefficient of friction is much lower with shoes on grass than bare feet. Homosapien-sapiens evolved over millions of years to grip things with their hands, (like slippery fish) and uneven surfaces with their feet--there was even a Gold Medal winning Olympic Marathoner Abebe Bikila who ran the 26.2 miles entirely barefoot!The surface is completely different at the beginning and at the end of the tournament because the grass goes from green and slippery to playing on packed dirt patches at the end. The grass is so slippery the first and second rounds that it's actually dangerous when you take into account the power in modern tennis - changing direction leads to injury producing muscle pulls and falls.
LOL!For the above reasons intelligent players should play BAREFOOT! The coefficient of friction is much lower with shoes on grass than bare feet. Homosapien-sapiens evolved over millions of years to grip things with their hands, (like slippery fish) and uneven surfaces with their feet--there was even a Gold Medal winning Olympic Marathoner Abebe Bikila who ran the 26.2 miles entirely barefoot!
Nike's are only a few decades old. The grass is not slippery if it is not wet. Clay courts are "slippery" but players learn to slide on them to their advantage. The grass at Wimby would not be as chewed up by the second week if players were barefoot. At one time players were allowed to wear spikes but they did badly chew up the courts and were outlawed--the nubs on modern grass court shoes don't do much more than a herringbone pattern.
Grass is much easier on the body absorbing joint jarring impacts much better than any other playfield surface--AstroTurf fields soon reverted back to natural grass because they caused injuries. If you fall on grass you are much less likely to injure yourself and bleed than on hard surfaces--and the blood won't show on the grass, another plus! Their is a practice called "earthing" that purports to have beneficial therapeutic effects by having direct contacts with the earth--sounds a bit wu-wu but whatever feels good. Tennis was born on grass hence the LAWN Tennis Assocs.--it just feels good! There is a history of players playing barefoot and winning, Ted Schroeder in the 1947 Davis Cup at Forest Hills.--It would be interesting if Wimby would allow it--or would it not be decorous?.
This is an interesting perspective. Could I please ask what you mean by "organic development"? Are you referring to the sport somehow becoming less dependent on commercial sponsorship and global capital?I hope that, once they are gone, tennis reverts to a (even more) niche activity that it once was and becomes less constrained by commercial pressures and freer to develop in a more "organic" way again.
Could I please ask why you believe Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal ultimately had a negative effect on the development of the sport? It's an interesting position, and if I'm understanding correctly (please tell me if I'm not!) you're of the opinion that their success was a positive trend at first, but then at some point became detrimental?It is of course not their fault that their talent brought so much attention to the sport, which eventually had a negative influence on its development. Or at least accelerated a trend that was already there.
There was nothing wrong with this year's tournament. It just failed to produce a classic final. That is where Wimbledon may struggle for a few years in the absence of the Big Three - no more Fedalovic epics.One off year does not derail a major event like Wimbledon. It is still the most prestigious tournament of the year.
I do think that long- term it would be better if there were a grass season with a master's 1000 and then Wimbledon. That would probably elevate the level of play bc players would have more experience on the surface.